User talk:Tvwatcher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Question regarding Wikipedia and capital letters

What is Wikipedia's policy on capitalizing headings and subheadings within an article (those that appear in the contents boxes)? For example, is "external links" always supposed to be "External links" or is it "External Links"? (Tvwatcher 19:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

Have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings). Standard policy is to only capitalize the first word, and any proper nouns. Cheers. -Dawson 20:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Tvwatcher! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Kukini 15:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

[edit] name change of article Edward Seykota

Hello

Please vote on the name change of article Edward Seykota , please vote here Talk:Edward Seykota wether you Oppose or Approve.
Thank you.
Trade2tradewell 11:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel S. Loeb

Hello

YOu have created the article Daniel S. Loeb
here is an extensive biographical article on him by Bloomberg magazine
http://ddo.typepad.com/ddo/files/DanLoeb_Bloomberg.pdf use this article to beef up the article.
Thanks
Trade2tradewell 12:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Steve Foley

This text is already in the article: "identified himself as a police officer (but did not show him his badge [1])," the link pointing almost essentially the same article you posted, and the article does mention that Mansker testified as such. Ocatecir 03:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If the article does say Mansker testified regarding those those actions, then that information should be in the article. --Tvwatcher 04:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
i don't think its relevant, the fact that he testified as such makes it a fact, but if you feel that its important I will add the word testified.Ocatecir 05:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Kenneth C. Griffin

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Tvwatcher! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, and try to reinsert the link again. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 18:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That edit was not spam, that was a citation and a useful link! --Tvwatcher 18:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheldon Adelson

Hello. Thank you for your friendly note to me explaining your edit. As you provided sourcing for the previously unsubstantiated statement, and your points that the information was written in neutral, non-bigoted tone, and that Adelson himself is proud of his heritage, I don't disagree with leaving the information in. One point I would add is that Larry Ellison is also Jewish. Depending on the stock prices of Oracle and Las Vegas Sands on a given day, it is possible that Ellison may be wealthier than Adelson. Because the Forbes 400 and other wealth ranking listings are only rough estimates based on limited public data about the people on the list, it may be more accurate to say something like "Adelson is one of the wealthiest persons of Jewish heritage in the world (according to Forbes magazine's rankings in 2006, Adelson is the wealthiest person of Jewish heritage in the world)." -- Rentir 01:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rogerplunk completely redid the Shalom Weiss article

PLEASE SEE MY (ROGERPLUNK'S) RESPONSE ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE.

Thanks for the heads-up. I took a look at it, and it's a disaster. We should work out which parts are unbiased enough to add to the previous version of the article, but basically strip the rest, since there's so much useless information there. Its very obvious that Rogerplunk added some of these parts (for example about National Heritage Life Insurance's "financial mess predating Weiss’s involvement").

Fact is that Weiss was convicted for fraud and that he is in jail for it.

I'll look into the article some other time, but I don't have the time right now. Nevertheless, I suggest we restore it (see Talk:Shalom Weiss). —Stimpy 16:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up a lot of the obvious bias and deleted a few completely unacceptable sentences (such as saying "Mr. Weiss maintains his innocence and seeks release from prison" for the third time.) Rogerplunk probably would have a field day with Jeff Skilling's article. Reverting the article is still an option on the table, I think, and then using the history to salvage whatever one of his legal defense team most likely contributed. The article might stand a chance as is with additional changes. --Tvwatcher 18:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed! I'll look into in some time next week. —Stimpy 02:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've cleaned up much of the article, it probably doesn't need to be reverted now with additional revision. --Tvwatcher 02:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] RE Generous Edits

I am thankful that you and others are being “generous”. I admit that re-writing the entire article was too much in-the-face, and I apologize. But it just seemed the easiest way at the time, considering the inaccurate dates and assertions. Some of your suggestions are good. But, you seem too quick to dismiss some important issues in the Weiss story. True, his 845-year sentence and involvement in the financial collapse of National Heritage are basic to his story. But the appeal issue is also important.

His extradition from Austria was initially denied because the U.S. could not get assurances from a U.S. court that he would get an appeal. This led to proceedings at the European Court of Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee, and the European Parliament, as well as going through all of the Austrian courts. It is considered the biggest case in Austria. And these proceedings continue in U.S. court.

One of the problems with the Weiss story is that there has been so much sensational journalism on him. And further, that many journalists have simply borrowed from each other, instead of doing original research and sourcing. You made the point that there is a lot of unfavorable stuff on Weiss. True, but the reason, I think, that much of it is not linked is because it is not clear whether it is correct, or sensational journalism. This is common, and discretion is needed. Not everything written out there is true, and analysis and judgment is needed more than just citing sources.

However, what is uncommon (but apparent in the Weiss story), is that basic facts of his case have been incorrectly reported, even by the honors page of the DOJ (see my response in the discussion page). The obvious example is the amounts of money involved. The $400 million figure is found in a lot of articles. The only answer to why this figure is floating around is that someone found out, probably in the pre-sentencing report, that it would cost about that amount to pay the policyholders, and assumed that this amount was “looted”, and that Weiss looted it. Another inaccuracy is that the Weiss case has often been portrayed as a “looting” case, whereas it was primarily a money laundering case. Most of the looting occurred before Weiss’s involvement. In fact, As the Best article makes clear, the mortgage scheme (which Weiss was involved in) was devised for the purpose of filling a $35 million financial hole made by looting of National Heritage by its officers. As the Best article also makes clear, the National Heritage story is not the Weiss story. Weiss is a down on the chain of a very complicated series of events, spanning years.

I noticed that you changed a sentence to read, “according to Weiss” he did not get involved in NH until 1993, (after NH had been looted). However the Best article states on p. 100 that Weiss did not come into the picture until 1993, for the mortgage scheme. I will look more closely at your edits in the next day or two. roger 01:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Common sense needs to be applied here. When a contributor provides information about a convicted individual's version of events, that information needs to be clearly presented as being Weiss's account. --Tvwatcher 07:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to "generous edits" response

  • It is considered the biggest case in Austria

This is an astonishing statement. Please provide a citation.

  • True, but the reason, I think, that much of it is not linked is because it is not clear whether it is correct, or sensational journalism.

Sensational journalism is one possiblity, not the sole possibility. All public figures probably wish they could put an asterisk next to every piece of sensational journalism. What if the journalism was not sensational and was accurate?

  • However, what is uncommon (but apparent in the Weiss story), is that basic facts of his case have been incorrectly reported

With what authority can you make this statement?

  • Weiss is a down on the chain of a very complicated series of events, spanning years.

Do you realize how suspect this sentence is?

Additional remark: the length of paragraphs and contributions is not parallel to weight in authority. Succinct information is preferred. --Tvwatcher 03:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] resp to resp

Regarding Austria, see e.g. UNHRC Decision, European Parliament comments, Article 19, pp.29-32 in Human Rights Report, European Union

Sensational journalism: as I said, it is a matter of judgment on what is reliable, and what seems fluff.

On the conviction, the pre-sentenceing report and indictment are the original sources.

That "Weiss is a down on the chain of a very complicated series of events, spanning years" is made clear in the Best Review article. The mortgage scheme was the last of a series of schemes at National Heritage.

Yes, I agree with Succinct. roger 06:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Call-girl

My recollection of the story (and I could provide links later) is that the authorities followed Weiss's Brazillian girlfriend. I know some sites use the "callgirl" term. But I think it is unfair to call anyone a callgirl, unless there is good reason (after all, she is a woman with feelings). The story is that she was with him in Brazil and Europe. It was a long-term relationship, not a callgirl relationship. roger 03:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid spamming my talk page with lengthy paragraphs (especially when the content is identical to Shalom Weiss's talk page.) In adition, do not blame the call girl reference on my contribution, as I was merely salvaging what you had briskly deleted when you made your initial contributions to Wikipedia. Another contributor wrote that sentence. Furthermore, you are not the designated moral judge of Wikipedia contributors. --Tvwatcher 07:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I thought that every change I make should be followed by a reason for that change. It is a matter of respect to the other contributers. Moral concerns, if you want to call it that, are part of such reasons. I had no way of knowing who did the oringinal work, as it was under your signiture. roger 00:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extradition

I inserted a section on extradition with the references you asked for. roger 03:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incarceration

I inserted one sentence on the nature of the habeas argument, with reference to pacer.com, where both the government and Weiss's arguments may be studied. Also corrected the name of the prison. It is federal, not state: USP Coleman. roger 03:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] introduction

I inserted the Best's Article as the primary source for the collapse of National Heritage. It is the most researched and reliable source of informaion on this subject. The source that was there before[1] was about fraud in general, but not about National Heritage. Took out references to the amounts "looted", which is addressed in the next section where they will be re-inserted. Corrected years as fugitive (one, not three). Corrected the claim re longest sentence. It is the longest sentence for a white collar crime. There are criminal convictions with higher sentences. Inserted in statement that Weiss has not had his appeal, and he still claims he is innocent. If he claims he is innocent, this should be made clear at the beginning of the article, especially since he has not been able to appeal his conviction (though promised by the Government).

Shalom Weiss's sentence was the longest federal prison term in US history (the statement was not that Shalom Weiss's sentence was the longest criminal prison term at any level). Furthermore, the composition of encyclopedia articles should not directed by the subject's legal defense team (although if I was the defendant I would hope for such diligence). Since you made an unwarrranted slam of my integrity with your call girl paragraph (about a contribution's content that I did not write), I feel somewhat entitled to venture into remarks about the conduct of you as a contributor. Wikipedia works when users, no matter what their perspective, have integrity and are willing to compromise. I have the highest respect for defense attorneys; however, the purpose of Wikipedia is not stomping grounds for campaining for an appeal for a convicted individual, and it is not a free medium for legal counsel to broadcast. I'm sure you realize that. Don't abuse this talk page, and please don't abuse Wikipedia or its contributors. --Tvwatcher 07:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Response

My understanding is that there are longer federal prison terms. One person has 2 life sentences plus 1000 years for drug charges. U.S. sentencing is crazy. Who I may or may not be is less relevant than the nature of the contributions. I put the Best Review article front and center, not because it is favorable to Weiss (it is not), but because it is the best researched and most objective article available on the web. The part on extradition is well referenced, and shows the significance of the appeal issue. It is a big part of the Weiss story. Also, the pacer.com link gives people excess to both the government and the Weiss arguments. Regarding the Weiss version, I do not see how it is unfair to give the Weiss side of the story, especially when it is clearly pointed out that it is his opinion, and because it is connected to his appeal. If you consider my responses here abusive, and do not want me to respond here, tell me and I will stop. roger 00:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Weiss version, I do not see how it is unfair to give the Weiss side of the story, especially when it is clearly pointed out that it is his opinion, and because it is connected to his appeal. --> Please do not mischaracterize my responses. I have clearly said that while there is no problem with Weiss's version being a portion of the article, there is a problem with Weiss's version being the prominent theme and agenda of the article. --Tvwatcher 16:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External link

The external link is a great idea. However, the link you provided there is NOT a brief by Weiss/counsel. It is a decision by the UN Committee of Human Rights. roger 22:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits and articles

Hello
I like your work and recent much needed contrubution, and I now need to discuss with you recent edits and articles that need work, also ask you to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics

We seem to have common interests. Please email me to discuss further.
Thanks
Trade2tradewell 17:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glad you are back

Hi

Glad to see you back !! Keep the good work going.. Trade2tradewell 23:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CurrentNFLKickers

I noticed on your user page that you were interested in seeing a template for current NFL kickers. I have gone ahead and made it:

v • d • e
Current Placekickers in the National Football League (as of Week 21 of the 2007 NFL season)

Just thought, given the note on your user page, you might be interested. I think a punter template is feasible as well. The other positions, in my opinion, fluctuate too much within the game to justify templates listing one particular player from each team. Quarterback, kicker, and punter are the only three positions, IMO, stable enough to have useful templates. Skudrafan1 23:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Excellent work! --Tvwatcher 17:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)